Gas stove and respiratory health: a cross-sectional study and a cohort study in Denmark, 2000–2018
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Knowledge on gas stove and adult respiratory health is limited. We studied the association between having a gas stove or not and respiratory health using cross-sectional and cohort designs. METHODS: Information on gas stove and respiratory symptoms (e.g. bronchitis, asthma, cough) was obtained from the Danish Health and Morbidity Survey year 2000 (aged ≥ 16 years, n = 3491). Odds ratios (ORs) of respiratory symptoms were estimated by Logistic regressions. In the cohort study, 3444 asthma-free individuals were followed for up to 18 years, with incident asthma identified via Danish National Registers. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were estimated by Poisson regression of incidence rates (IRs). RESULTS: Overall, 13.9% of participants had a gas stove. Respiratory symptoms ranged from 3.0% (bronchitis) to 12.1% (cough). The odds were significantly higher for bronchitis (OR 1.90; 95% CI, 1.15-3.14), cough (OR 1.46; 95% CI, 1.11-1.91), and shortness of breath (OR 1.89: 95% CI, 1.30-2.77) among participants with gas stoves compared to participants without. In the cohort study the overall IR of asthma was 6.1 per 1000 person-years. The adjusted IRR of asthma was 1.19 (95% CI, 0.78-1.80). CONCLUSIONS: Having a gas stove was associated with higher risk of certain respiratory symptoms and indicated an increased asthma incidence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".